I Do Too Exist

K

KalvinB

Publicity Whore
Registered Senior Member
Anything that exists must be being. If it were non-being it wouldn't exist by definition. Or at least it wouldn't exist in reality. It could simply be intangible like dragons and extended warrenties. They may not be able to been seen but in one's imagination but that doesn't stop them from affecting people. We experience thought but it has no form. It doesn't have a position or take up space. As soon as we forget it, it ceases to exist. For it to cease to exist, it must have previously existed. Therefore, at least thoughts can be. In order for a thought to come into existance it must come from something.

But there are also things which are tangible, having form. If nothing does not exist then there must not be any place that contains nothing. For if nothing can be contained it must be something. Therefore being must be infinite as nothing does not exist so everything that does exist is something and that something is being. If it is infinite then it is everywhere. However, to be everywhere there must be a position. Position is simply a relation between two points. If being is infinite, it contains an inifite number of points and therefore an infinite number of positions and therefore is infinite in size. Since position is based on being then both must coexist or neither would exist. Without being there are no points. With no points there is no position. As thoughts which have no substance are contained in the mind which has substance, so are points which have no substance contained in being which has substance.

Being is not created. If it were created it would come from something and that something would be being. Therefore being is both infinite in time and space. If being could cease to exist then it would no longer be being. If being which is infinite ceased to exist then nothing would fill an infinite void. For nothing to replace an infinite something it must be something itself. Therefore being cannot cease to exist. Therefore since being cannot be created or destroyed it is both eternally old and eternally young. Young and old are opposite intangibles as neither can be touched. Like postition they are relative to a body. However the body of young and old is time which is also intangible. Therefore there is no contradiction as young is at one end of the body and old at the other with age in the middle an equal distance from both. Therefore it could be considered both young and old as a glass can be half empty or half full.

Being is one made of three. It has height, width and depth. If being had no height there would be nothing in the place of something which cannot exist. If it had no width there would be something in place of nothing which cannot exist. If it had no dept there would be something in place of nothing which cannot exist. Therefore height, width and depth make up being which is infinite in all directions. Direction is relative to height, width and depth. Height, width, and depth are relative to body. Without body none could exist. Without body, height, width and depth could not exist. Without height, width and depth, direction could not exist. As each are relative to each other.

As position which is intangible cannot exist ultimately without a tangible, so do all intagibles ultimately require a tangible to exist. Position requires height, width or depth which are intangibles to exist. Height, width and depth, require body which is tangible. Therefore since my thoughts which have drifted in and out through the writing of this paper are intangible, so I must be tangible or intangible as an intangible cannot come from nothing therefore I must be something. Therefore, I do too exist.
 
I disagree. <img src = "http://www.sciforums.com/t6317/s14bf4fa23e2312c6c69948679b454fae/images/icons/icon10.gif">
 
Originally posted by KalvinB
Being is one made of three. It has height, width and depth. If being had no height there would be nothing in the place of something which cannot exist. If it had no width there would be something in place of nothing which cannot exist. If it had no dept there would be something in place of nothing which cannot exist. Therefore height, width and depth make up being which is infinite in all directions. Direction is relative to height, width and depth. Height, width, and depth are relative to body. Without body none could exist. Without body, height, width and depth could not exist. Without height, width and depth, direction could not exist. As each are relative to each other.
Click to expand...
Rebuttal

Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
All mimsy were the borogroves,
And the mame raths outgrabe.
'Beware the Jabberwock, my son,
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch.
Beware the jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious bandersnatch.'
He took his vorpal sword in hand;
Long time the manxome foe he sought.
Then rested he by the tum-tum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One! two! and through and through
The vorpal blade went snickersnack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
'And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjious day! Calooh! Calay!'
He chortled in his joy.
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
All mimsy were the borogroves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.


Therefore, I do not exist.

Peace.
 
KalvinB, define "tangible". Considering science has yet to discover anything but interactions, and there seems to be no substance to be found in the universe, I don't really see how it can be considered tangible in an absolute sense any more than thought.

We don't experience the universe, we only experience our own minds. What we experience is what it is like for us to have sense perceptions of a universe. The perceptions don't have "substance" in common with the reality that lies outside the mind, only logical structure. Where physicalists and idealists seem to get confused is in failing to understand that we don't know what anything outside of us is actually like, only what it's like for us and other people to perceive it. Due to this, it becomes simple to suppose that the self is what it's like to be a particular (tiny) part of the universe. That's your brain in physicalist language or mind in idealists language. (The mistake physicalists tend to make is saying that a brain is what you see when you cut open someone's head -- that's still only what it's like for you to see a sense data representation of that brain, it's not what the brain actually is.)

What proves the existence of the self, ultimately, is the awareness of something or other. If there's awareness of some sort of representation of the universe, or even just of a delusion, then there must be something aware and we can call that the self and use it to prove that there's a universe of some sort.
 
"What proves the existence of the self, ultimately, is the awareness of something or other. If there's awareness of some sort of representation of the universe, or even just of a delusion, then there must be something aware and we can call that the self and use it to prove that there's a universe of some sort."

And René strikes again!
hahaha
 
looks like someone's been reading his Descartes again

Being is one made of three. It has height, width and depth. If being had no height there would be nothing in the place of something which cannot exist. If it had no width there would be something in place of nothing which cannot exist. If it had no dept there would be something in place of nothing which cannot exist. Therefore height, width and depth make up being which is infinite in all directions. Direction is relative to height, width and depth. Height, width, and depth are relative to body. Without body none could exist. Without body, height, width and depth could not exist. Without height, width and depth, direction could not exist. As each are relative to each other.
Click to expand...


Being is made up of much much more than that. Being is nth-dimensional. There is mass in being, charge density, change, the list goes on and on.
 
Descartes? :rolleyes: It’s safe to say he'd call me a heretic and would completely disagree with virtually everything I say. For one thing I’m not a dualist, so my entire basis of reality is different. I don't draw a distinction between the type of thing that is self and the type of thing that is other things.

I strongly disagree with Descartes' "I think therefore I am." Thinking doesn't define being, awareness defines it. Awareness (which tends to be of thought) is what's most basic. Without awareness you cannot have any sense of the dimensions, and in fact relativity basically tells you that space-time depends on you having a point of observation (that point being the definition of self).

To say that there is mass, charge density, change, etc. in being is to presuppose things that don't exist without being.

There is a relation between the static unchanging 4-D logical structure of the objective universe and the self. What we consider to be the self, however -- the things that exists in mass, charge density, change, etc. -- is actually defined by a perspective of awareness. (That perspective simply happens to be associated with an area of the static objective reality.)

If I've been reading too much of anyone lately, it must be Einstein, not Descartes. It's Einstein's special relativity which says perspective is the basic requirement for what we normally call reality to exist.
 
Hoth, I am afraid that dualism is not what Descartes was about. He was a dualist, but that is not THAT important.
I strongly disagree with Descartes' "I think therefore I am." Thinking doesn't define being, awareness defines it. Awareness (which tends to be of thought) is what's most basic. Without awareness you cannot have any sense of the dimensions, and in fact relativity basically tells you that space-time depends on you having a point of observation (that point being the definition of self).
Click to expand...
Erm... did you get the point?
You must have because what you wrote earlier was exactly the same as the line of reasoning of Descartes. (and that's why I said "René strikes again"). here is what René Descartes meant in your words:
What proves the existence of the self, ultimately, is the awareness of something or other. If there's awareness of some sort of representation of the universe, or even just of a delusion, then there must be something aware and we can call that the self and use it to prove that there's a universe of some sort.
Click to expand...
In fact your last few words reflect the same start of Descartes' proof of the existance of God.
 
Adam

Aussies are the best philosophers in the world. Could be because we seem to drink so much
 
Originally posted by KalvinB
Anything that exists must be being. If it were non-being it wouldn't exist by definition. Or at least it wouldn't exist in reality.
Click to expand...

Many people today lack of awareness, which may seldom touch with the ¡°what¡± and the ¡°now¡± of his/ her behaviour. Therefore, they are likely to exist rather than to be and are unable to live effectively with sense. Equally, they may be reluctant to take responsibility for themselves and their lives to bring about barriers in their development and to result in alienating him/ her from the environment.

kind wishes
 
Originally posted by Hoth
I strongly disagree with Descartes' "I think therefore I am." Thinking doesn't define being, awareness defines it. Awareness (which tends to be of thought) is what's most basic.
Click to expand...
But to be aware, you have to be.
 
Yes, Firefly, but you have to contruct the argument so that you don't assume your own conclusion. The fact that you have to be in order to be aware flows out of language usage. You don't have to be aware in order to be -- after all, you could be a rock -- but you do have to be in order to be aware. That's exactly what shows that it's correct to say "I exist."

Awareness must be taken as more basic in the argument than thought, because thought is simply a kind of awareness. To prove thought means to be aware of thought, which means you should really just keep things simple and stick with awareness to begin with and you'll have a shorter proof.

There is awareness, by definition, since awareness is anything other than total nothingness (being dead)... thus to notice this argument is to prove that there's awareness. Then, in order to use language correctly, you must say there is something which is aware. (It would be improper use of language to talk of awareness without it having both a objects of awareness and a subject which is aware.) It's proven by this argument that it's correct use of language to make the statement "I exist." Of course it doesn't give you any detail of what that really means, and it simply flows from language usage, but that's all you'll ever get and all you could ever need.
 
Last edited:
I disagree.

Originally posted by Hoth
There is awareness, by definition, since awareness is anything other than total nothingness (being dead)...
Click to expand...
You're saying that anything that isn't "total nothingness (being dead)" is aware? Your rock? What's the difference between being sentient and aware?

And you lost me here:
(It would be improper use of language to talk of awareness without it having both a objects of awareness and a subject which is aware.)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top